ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[wg-review] Re: 11. IDNH - Clean Motion


This statement of consensus should be included in the documentation of this working group.  It is a concise statement and accurately reflects the conclusion of this group.
The motion has been made and properly seconded that this be sent on via the Chairs to the appropriate persons and entities on behalf of this working group.

Sincerely,
 
 

 

Motion by Chris McElroy & David Farrar

> "The WG Review has reached a near consensus

> >that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain Name

> >Registrants. This WG has not addressed the matter of how to implement this

> newConstituency, neither has it proposed what group should represent them, nor

> >how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or

> >selected within six months.

> We specifically propose a dedicatedworking group be set up to come up with specific proposals and options

> on the structure and functioning of the constituency.

>

> >We ask that this process be expedited in this

> >way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have included them in

> >the process from the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this matter would be put

> onthe agenda as a top priority and that public comment will be sought on how

> thisconstituency shall be formed.

> How an individual domain name registrants constituency shall contribute to the funding of ICANN and

> the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated working group. There

> is a view that such registrants already indirectly fund ICANN and DNSO

> through their domain name fees which largely fund the Registrar,

> Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated and

> negotiated with those constituencies."

>

Statement by Joop Teenstra> >

> > >The @large is

> > >1. adisorganized group of all Internet users' diverse interests.

> > >2. without Charter or Mission statement

> > >3. without means of the members to contact each other

> > >4. subject to a Study that may reduce its representation on the Board ordo

> > >away with it altogether

> > >5. represented by Directors that may be representing interests directly

> > >opposed to typical DN holders' interests.

> > >6. top-down and controlled by ICANN staff.

> > >7. Unable to provide policy formulations to the ICANN Board

> > >

> > >An Individual Domain Name Owners constituency is:

> > >1. formed naturally by people with a common interest-- bottom up and in

> > >control of its own Charter and destiny

> > >2. part of the DNSO where Domain Name Policy initiatives are developed

> > >3. a place where any Domain Name Owner gets a chance to be part of the

> > >policymaking process, (and get the results to the attention of the Board)

> > >via its own elected officers

> > >4. a counterweight in the DNSO, giving it an opportunity to be

> considerablymore legitimate than it is now.

>
 
 

> >

>

begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>